[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: address@hidden: Font Lock on-the-fly misfontification in C++]

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: address@hidden: Font Lock on-the-fly misfontification in C++]
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 10:17:01 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

Morning, Richard!

On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:20:12PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> For distinguishing the two versions I write "Emacs" and "XEmacs",
> because the context shows we are talking about these two variants
> of the original GNU Emacs.

This leaves a difficulty when there is no context.  For example, you
might find this in an overview of editors:

(1)  "Most free editors do syntax highlighting.  In vim, ........  In
     Emacs, syntax highlighting is usually called "font locking"."

A bit lower down in the same article, there might be ....

(2)  "In some editors you can also highlight a region of text explicitly.
     In vim you do ......., in Emacs you can type M-o M-o."

> In other contexts, there is no need to refer to the two variants but
> there is a need to connect Emacs with the GNU system.  There I write
> "GNU Emacs".

In paragraph (1), it is clear that "Emacs" includes XEmacs.  To
substitute "Emacs and XEmacs" would make the sentence clumsy and
less readable, and wouldn't be helpful to the target readership.

In paragraph (2), the context of bare "Emacs" having previously been set
to "generic Emacs", clarity demands the substitution of "GNU Emacs".

I believe "GNU Emacs" is used mainly for unambiguous identification
rather than connecting it with the GNU system - much like "John of
Gaunt" is used to clarify which John you're talking about rather than to
associate him with the town of Gent in Belgium.

The root of the problem is that XEmacs is neither identical with Emacs
nor totally independent from it.  Until such time as XEmacs diverges
completely from Emacs (another Boston tea party? ;-), or remerges with
it, there will be no good solution to the problem.

How about using a mixture of judgement, good sense, and tact, taking
each case on its merits?  :-(


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]